alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

To the Directors of
EMS TECHNOLOGIES CANADA, LTD.

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of EMS TECHNOLOGIES CANADA, LTD.
as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of
operations, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended. These
consolidated financial statements are the responsibility of the Corporation's
management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these consolidated
financial statements based on our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and
perform an audit to obtain reasonable assurance whether the financial statements
are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,
evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An
audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

In our opinion, the consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of EMS Technologies
Canada, Ltd. as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the results of their
operations and their cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The Corporation changed its method of accounting for derivative instruments and
hedging activities in 2001, as described in note 2.

Since the accompanying consolidated financial statements have not been prepared
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in Canada, they may
not satisfy the reporting requirements of Canadian statutes and regulations.

                                              Ernst & Young LLP
                                              Chartered Accountants

Ottawa, Canada,
February 20, 2003
# C_2015346EN.01002401.xml

| 19.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 September 2015 — H&M Hennes & Mauritz v OHIM — Yves Saint Laurent (Handbags)

(Case T-526/13) (1)

1

((Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing handbags - Earlier design - Ground for invalidity - Individual character - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Obligation to state reasons))

(2015/C 346/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: H. Hartwig and A. von Mühlendahl, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Yves Saint Laurent SAS (Paris, France) (represented by: N. Decker, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 July 2013 (Case R 208/2012-3) relating to invalidity proceedings between H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG and Yves Saint Laurent SAS.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG to pay the costs, including those incurred by Yves Saint Laurent SAS in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders H&M Hennes & Mauritz BV & Co. KG to pay the costs, including those incurred by Yves Saint Laurent SAS in the course of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 359, 7.12.2013.

1

---
# C_2014395EN.01004902.xml

| 10.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 395/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 395/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 September 2014 — Arctic Paper Mochenwangen v Commission

(Case T-634/13) (1)

((Environment - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Transitional rules concerning the harmonised allocation of emission allowances free of charge as from 2013 - Decision 2011/278/EU - National implementation measures submitted by Germany - Clause on cases with undue hardship - Freedom to conduct a business - Right to property - Proportionality))

(2014/C 395/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH (Wolpertswende, Germany) (represented by: S. Kobes, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: E. White, C. Hermes and K. Herrmann, Agents)

Re:

Application to annul Article 1(1) of Commission Decision 2013/448/EU of 5 September 2013 concerning national implementation measures for the transitional free allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances in accordance with Article 11(3) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ 2013 L 240, p. 27), in so far as it rejects the inscription of the installation with identification code DE000000000000563 on the list of installations provided for in Article 11(1) of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32), and the preliminary total annual amounts of emission allowances allocated free of charge to that installation.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Arctic Paper Mochenwangen GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 31, 1.2.2014.

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 11, 2019. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 11, 2019 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A19I0270. QUINCY JOHN DIBENARDO v. THE STATE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 16M0307ADM
# THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 2ND DISTRICT COURT OF CHEROKEE CO UNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 2nd

day of September, 2015 , the ca use upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

RAFAEL VILLEGAS , Appellant

NO. 12

- 14

- 00269

- CR; Trial Court No. 18,769

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these wor ds:

“ THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record and brief filed herein, and the

same being considered, it is the opinion of this court that there was no error in the judgment.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the judgment of the court

below be in all things affirmed , and that this decision be certified to the court below for

observance. ”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN , Chief Justice of our Court

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of

Tyler, this the 28 th day of December , 2015.

PAM ESTES , CLERK

By:

_______________________________ Chief Deputy Clerk
#### People v Ross

App Term, 1st Dept: 53 Misc 3d 155(A) (NY)

denied 3/14/17 (Fahey, J.)
No. 09-11311.

#### Marcus Sykes, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1127, 131 S. Ct. 858,

178 L. Ed. 2d 621,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6.

January 7, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to file volume II of the joint appendix under seal granted.
# C_2014315EN.01004701.xml

| 15.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/47

---

Order of the President of the Court of 19 June 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — TUIfly GmbH v Harald Walter

(Case C-79/14) (1)

1

2014/C 315/80

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 142, 12.5.2014.

1

---
No. 10-10756.

#### Charles Edward Fields, Petitioner v. David Gundy, Warden.

565 U.S. 848, 132 S. Ct. 168,

181 L. Ed. 2d 81,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6548.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 10-1507.

#### Dean Rea, Petitioner v. Federated Investors.

565 U.S. 825, 132 S. Ct. 116,

181 L. Ed. 2d 40,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5234.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 627 F.3d 937.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER **

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 **

|                               |                                                                     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
|------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                                     |
|                          |                                                                |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  |
| Date:              August 10, 2007 | By:                                                            | /s/Dr.              John J.              McGrath                                        |
|                               | Dr. John J. McGrath Chief                Executive Officer and President |
|                               |                                                                     |

----
No. 10-1412.

#### C.W. Mining Company, Petitioner v. Aquila, Inc., et al.

565 U.S. 820, 132 S. Ct. 104,

181 L. Ed. 2d 31,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6628.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 636 F.3d 1257.
```
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 34921]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17087]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
(MT-930-1430-01; MTM 40641)

Public Land Order No. 7346; Partial Revocation of Executive Order 
Dated July 9, 1910; Montana

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public Land Order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This order partially revokes an Executive order insofar as it 
affects approximately 310 acres of National Forest System land 
withdrawn for the Bureau of Land Management's Coal Reserve Montana No. 
1. The land is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was 
withdrawn. The revocation is needed to permit disposal of the land 
through a Forest Service exchange. The land has been open to 
metalliferous mining and mineral leasing under the withdrawal, but is 
temporarily closed to surface entry and mining, by the Forest Service 
exchange proposal.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Ward, BLM Montana State Office, 
P.O. Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107, 406-255-2949.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1994), it is ordered as follows:
    1. Executive Order dated July 9, 1910, which withdrew public lands 
for the Bureau of Land Management's Coal Reserve Montana No. 1, is 
hereby revoked insofar as it affects the following described land:

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. 6 S., R. 2 E.,
    Sec. 26, W\1/2\E\1/2\NE\1/4\NE\1/4\, W\1/2\NE\1/4\NE\1/4\, NW\1/
4\NE\1/4\, N\1/2\SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, N\1/2\S\1/2\SW\1/4\NE\1/4\, W\1/
2\NE\1/4\SE\1/4\NE\1/4\, NW\1/4\SE\1/4\NE\1/4\, NW\1/4\SW\1/4\SE\1/
4\NE\1/4\, N\1/2\NW\1/4\, N\1/2\S\1/2\NW\1/4\, S\1/2\SW\1/4\NW\1/4\, 
N\1/2\S\1/2\SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, SW\1/4\SW\1/4\SE\1/4\NW\1/4\, NE\1/
4\NE\1/4\NW\1/4\SW\1/4\, W\1/2\E\1/2\NW\1/4\SW\1/4\, W\1/2\NW\1/
4\SW\1/4\, NW\1/4\NE\1/4\SW\1/4\SW\1/4\, and N\1/2\NW\1/4\SW\1/
4\SW\1/4\.

    The area described contains approximately 310 acres in Madison 
County.

    2. At 9 a.m. on July 13, 1998, the above described land will be 
relieved of the segregative effects of Coal Reserve Montana No. 1 and 
will be open to such forms of disposition as may by law be made of 
National Forest System lands, subject to valid existing rights, the 
provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and 
the requirements of applicable law.

    Dated: June 18, 1998.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 98-17087 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
```
No. 10-11180.

#### Christelia Neal, Petitioner v. Ford Motor Company.

565 U.S. 811, 132 S. Ct. 87,

181 L. Ed. 2d 17,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6864.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied. Petitioner is allowed until October 24, 2011, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
Exhibit 32.01

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350

and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b)

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Concur Technologies, Inc. (Concur) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, S.
Steven Singh, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Concur, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(b), that to my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Concur.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: February 5, 2009



By

/s/ S. Steven SinghS. Steven SinghChief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board


This certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
and shall not be deemed to be filed by Concur for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. This certification is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Concur under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
No. 10-6711.

#### Ignacio Torres, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1174, 131 S. Ct. 990,

178 L. Ed. 2d 819,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 112.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 562 U.S. 1018, 131 S. Ct. 543, 178 L. Ed. 2d 398, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 8444.
No. 10-10964.

#### Julian Rochester, Petitioner v. South Carolina, et al.

565 U.S. 804, 132 S. Ct. 376,

181 L. Ed. 2d 5,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6397.

October 3, 2011.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied, and petition for writ of certiorari dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petition in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U.S. 1, 113 S. Ct. 397, 121 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1992) (per curiam).
Exhibit
32.2













CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO






SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002










In
connection with the Quarterly Report of American Community Properties Trust (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Cynthia
L. Hedrick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section
1350), that:








1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and


2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.














/s/
      Cynthia L. HedrickCynthia
      L. HedrickExecutive
      Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust
      14, 2008
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

Kurt D. Saliger
Certified Public Accountant
5000 West Oakey
Suite A-4
Las Vegas, Nevada 89146

November 11, 1999

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

RE:      HIKING ADVENTURES, INC., FORM 10Q-SB

Dear Sir or Madam:

         As a Certified Public Accountant, I hereby consent to the inclusion of
my report dated November 8, 1999, in the Form 10Q-SB filed by Hiking Adventures,
Inc., including all references to my reports to the extend they are concurrent
therewith and contained in the Form 10Q-SB.

By:    /s/
    Kurt D. Saliger, C.P.A.
No. 10-664.

#### Josephine Joyce, Petitioner v. J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.

562 U.S. 1201, 131 S. Ct. 1046,

178 L. Ed. 2d 865,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1020,

January 24, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 389 Fed. Appx. 529.
Approved Change 49A 

Revision to DLMS Supplement (DS)

517M, Material Obligation Validation (MOV)

1. ORIGINATOR:

a. Sponsor: Supply Process Review Committee, Ellen Hilert, Co-Chair, DLA J673, 

Defense Logistics Management Standards Office (DLMSO), 703-767-0676 (DSN 427), 

ellen_hilert@hq.dla.mil

2. FUNCTIONAL AREA: Supply

3. REQUESTED CHANGE:

a. Title: Revision to DS 517M, MOV.

b. Description of Change: ADC 49 opened the unit of issue data element for 

DLMS use in the 517 DS. This change identifies correct placement of the associated 

note. Additionally it inserts the Document Identifier Code for use during DLSS/DLMS 

transition. 

c. Procedures: Revise DLMS Supplements as indicated. 

# Location Revision Reason Federal IC 

1 2/QTY03/10 Open data element:

C001 Composite Unit of Measure 

Notes are associated with data element 355, Unit or Basis for 

Measurement Code:

Add Federal Note: Use to identify the unit of issue for the 

material validated.

Add DLMS Note: DLMS users see the Unit of Issue and 

Purchase Unit Conversion Table for available codes.

Reinsertion of 

previously 

streamlined data to 

support DLSS-DLMS 

conversion. The 

indicated placement

of the note is 

consistent with other 

DLMS DSs.

Open data 

element. 

Requires a 

Federal IC 

change prior 

to DS 

update.

2 2/LQ01/80 Add qualifier and note:

0 Document Identification Code

DLMS Note: 

1. The DLSS DI Code is retained in the DLMS to facilitate 

transaction conversion in a mixed DLSS/DLMS environment. 

Continued support of the DI Code in a full DLMS 

environment will be assessed at a future date. 

2. Future streamlined data; see introductory DLMS note 3c.

This data element 

was apparently 

dropped during IC 

development and is 

being reinserted. DI 

Code is necessary to 

perform the 

conversion between 

DLMS and DLSS 

transactions.

Add data 

element. 

Change to 

Federal IC 

not required 

prior to DS 

update.
d. Alternatives: None identified.

4. REASON FOR CHANGE: This change is required for successful conversion 

between the DLSS MOV transaction and the corresponding DLMS implementation. 

Under the original DLMS concept the unit of issue applicable to the MOV would be 

resident in both the sender and receiver’s systems and transmission was not considered 

necessary. Current thinking is that the unit of issue must be retained to support 

conversion and may be retained under the future DLMS. The DI Code is also required 

for successful conversion of MOV transactions.

5. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES:

a. Advantages: Supports DLMS implementation.

b. Disadvantages: None identified.

6. IMPACT: 

a. Publications. Corresponding Federal IC.

b. DAAS DLMS/DLSS conversion maps incorporate the above revision. No change 

required.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350)





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), the undersigned, Corey M. Horowitz, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of Network-1 Security Solutions, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify to his knowledge, that:





The Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 of the Company (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




/s/ Corey M. HorowitzChief Executive Officer and ChairmanMay 14, 2010
#### *State, Respondent, v. McClure, Petitioner,*

No. 91259-9.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 44061-0-II, December 30, 2014, 185 Wn. App. 1013. *Denied*December 2, 2015.